SCIENCE. 



507 



two doses of twenty-five and fifty milligrammes each. 

 Death resulted under symptoms of irritant poisoning. 

 Tin was detected in large amount in the fasces and in the 

 viscera, notably the liver. 



Another similar animal took within three days, in six 

 doses 450 milligrammes of stannic hydrate, without 

 serious effect, tin appearing abundantly in the excre- 

 ments. Accustomed in a manner to stannic salts, it 

 quickly succumbed to fifty milligrammes of stannous 

 hydrate. 



It plainly follows that while stannic compounds are not 

 injurious in the doses given, tin in the stannous condition 

 is a virulent irritant poison. 



These experiments lead me most strongly to support 

 your demand for a better method of packing preserved 

 food matters than in tin canisters. Tin invariably dis- 

 solves in the stannous condition in such solvents as occur 

 in vegetable or animal substances, and the amount of 

 oxygen in the sealed canisters being very minute, oxida- 

 tion cannot render the metal comparatively unobjection- 

 able. 



I trust that the medical profession will object, un- 

 mistakably and strongly, to the administration of tin by 

 grocers and oilmen to young and old alike, and, whilst 

 acknowledging the enormous benefits conferred upon 

 the masses by the introduction of preserved foods, will 

 insist that the present system of packing be speedily 

 abandoned. — Lancet. 



CORRESPONDENCE. 



To the Editor of " Science." 



Dear Sir : I have carefully read your article on " The 

 Warner Astronomical Prizes," published in Science, of 

 Sept. 24, wherein myself and Mr. Warner, are severely 

 and unjustly criticised. In a former number you had 

 criticised one of the conditions of the prize : viz, that 

 " the comet must be telescopic and unexpected,' saying 

 that a person might discover a comet by the aid of an 

 opera glass. But what, I ask, is an opera glass but a 

 telescope. In order to defend myself from even the sem- 

 blance of crookedness, allow me to state a few facts, 

 familiarity with which would, doubtless, have kept you 

 from error. When the great comet (known as comet B) 

 made its appearance so suddenly, all familiar with the 

 conditions of the award, conceded that no just demand 

 on Mr. Warner could be made, as it was neither telescopic 

 nor unexpected, but very many people, not conversant 

 with the conditions, and supposing that it applied to all 

 comets, began to send in claims for discovery. Then 

 Mr. Warner said, inasmuch as the comet was such a 

 large and brilliant one, and that so many seemed not to 

 have understood the conditions imposed, he would offer a 

 special prize of $200 to the one whom I, after an examin- 

 ation of claims, should decide had first seen it. It is a 

 point of no little significance, to remember that this in no 

 sense was to be considered as the Warner-prize proper 

 to be adjudicated upon by Profs. Hall and Young, in the 

 event of a controversy, but was distinctly stated to be 

 a special prize. The conditions of the original prize were 

 neither in this, nor any other instance, to be deviated 

 from. From a misconception of this vital point, which, 

 under the circumstances, was, perhaps, natural, you have 

 endeavored to make your readers believe that Mr. 

 Warner took — wrongfully and unjustly — the matter out 

 of the hands of Prots. Hall and Young, and placed it in 

 my own, but you are grievously in error. I do not purpose 

 to burden your columns with the reasons for not award- 

 ing the prize for comet B. Not an astronomer in the 

 world, with all those letters before him, would have 

 awarded it. 



You make the task of deciding the question a very easy 



one, and so might I have found it by placing myself in 

 the position of a judge, who must decide according to the 

 evidence, true or false. Instead of condensing the letters 

 to a half dozen, as you suggest, I could haye reduced 

 them to a single one, for one of the claimants solemnly 

 declared that he saw it a year ago last August, and that 

 he had watched it ever since, while another averred that 



j he discovered it last January, and several claimed it be- 

 fore its discovery in South Africa, and some of these 

 statements were sworn to at that. 



Every astronomer knows that the comet (which was 



- discovered in South Africa on May 21), in its northward 

 journey, passed the sun, 8° west of it, at noon on the 

 19th of June, and, therefore, after its disappearance in 

 the southern hemisphere, could not have been seen by 

 any person, in any part part of the world, before the 

 morning of the 22d of June, and yet not less than 1000 

 persons claimed (the statements of many being substan- 

 tiated by affidavits), that they saw the comet at dates 



! ranging all the way from May 1 to June 20. Was I to 

 accept such statements as those, and accord to them the 

 dignity of evidence, and award the prize for an invisible 

 comet ? The comet first became visible to us near the 

 time of the summer solstice, when twilight commenced 

 at about half past two A. M., which rendered even a 

 bright and expected comet very difficult to see until its 

 declination north became at least 15° greater than the 

 sun's. Your assertion that I have awarded myself the 

 prize for the discovery of one comet, is erroneous to the 

 last degree. Where there is but one claimant, as was 

 the case with Swift's, with Schaeberle's, and with Barn- 

 ard's comets, Mr. Warner, without consultation with 

 any one, pays the prize. Should any dispute arise as to 

 priority of discovery, &c, then, according to the condi- 

 tions, the matter was to be left to Profs. Hall and Young 

 for a decision. 



Again, you do me great injustice in saying that the 

 essays ought not to be filed with me, because I am both 

 a competitor and a judge. 1 am not a competitor for that 

 prize, nor am I to be a judge. The essays are placed in 

 my hands for safe keeping, and when the first of Novem- 

 ber arrives, will three astronomers (if as many can be 

 found who are not competitors) be appointed as judges, 

 to whom 1 shall send the essays for a decision agreeably 

 to condition. 3d. As to who will appoint the judges, I 

 am as ignorant as are you. 



Trusting you will give this letter in its entirety, to the 

 public, through the columns of your journal, I remain, 

 Yours truly, Lewis Swift. 



Rochester, October 10, 1881. 



Relations between the Cranium and the Rest of the 

 Skeleton. — These relations form the subject of a paper by 

 M. Manouvier, read al the last meeting of the French As- 

 sociation. The following are the author's conclusions : — 

 1. The weight of the cranium varies, in a general way, with 

 the weight of the skeleton, but not proportionally, like the 

 weight of the brain. 2. The weight of the skeleton, less 

 the cranium, in a given race, varies nearly in proportion to 

 the weight of the femur. 3. The weight of the cranium is 

 greater relatively to that of the femur, the lighter the latter 

 is. 4. The weight of the cranium is much more consider- 

 able relatively to that of the femur in woman than in man. 

 5. This sexual difference is so pronounced that it consti- 

 I tutes one of the best secondary sexual characters. About 

 82 women in 100 have the cranium heavier than the two 

 femurs, while 82 men in 100 have it lighter. 6. The lower 

 jaw is heavier relatively to the cranium in the anthropoids 

 than in man, is inferior than in civilized races, in man than 

 in woman, and in the adult than in the child. 7. The 

 weight of the cranium is smaller relatively to that of the 

 lower jaw, the heavier the latter is, etc. 



